Wow - the comments on that article are frightening. I don't think there is anyone in the comments who has a reasonable point of view.

Actually what I find interesting is the lack of commentary on this thread here...I have been noticing that even when mainstream feminist blogs post about transgender issues they are either ignored or the comments are extremely trans phobic. Where is this fear and obvious silencing coming from?
When I wrote about the murder of trans woman Angie Zapata a quick tour through the feminist sites at the time and it was obvious that there was a resounding lack of coverage. When the issue of Kyle Payne the rape counselor turned sexual predator happened it was posted on various blogs with the utmost speed. What this comes down to is what bodies matter in society.

I agree, the comments to the article are frightening and extremely charged. I enjoyed the article a lot and it spoke to certain challenges I've been facing as my girlfriend has been transitioning from M to F. However, I think we should prize the solidarity that does exist between people of all genders (when it exists).

Her book, Whipping Girl, is terrific and educational, many times in that fuck-how-could-I-have-been-such-a-moron way.

Renee, I think the lack of commenting on Transgender issues reflects the lack of understanding of those issues in the greater Feminist community. That said, as someone who is familiar with many of those issues, the whole MWMF story causes me to yawn and turn the page. I've got little sympathy for the organizers who want to keep M-to-F transwomen out, while allowing F-to-M transmen to continue participating (hypocricy, thy name is MWMF), but then I find the whole separatist ideal of the MWMF to be archaic and inappropriate to my life and my ideals of feminism.

@ luckwouldhaveit Transgender issues reflects the lack of understanding of those issues in the greater Feminist community.

This to me is a cop out. Unless you inhabit the body of a trans gendered person you will never achieve a complete acquaintance with the issues, it is an impossibility. What we are seeing is targeted silencing by failing to respond. White people don't fear to comment to WOC about race even when they are not qualified to do so, yet this is a feeling that is ascribed to gender issues?? I submit that this is silence as a tactic of marginalization...if we do not recognize the issue there cannot be one sort of mentality.

Many readers prefer not to post on subjects they may know little about, and instead will read an article (and its sources) to educate themselves. So, a lack of comments on a particular post doesn't mean that the post has been ignored. And stating "you'll never understand" is a great way to shut down any discussion.

@luckwouldhaveit that is an awful lot of "not understanding" for a group as large as feminism for there not to be a selective nature to it, call me cynical. It smacks of CIS privilege..even having the power to decide what will and will not be discussed is an expression of privilege...People simply do not care and do not see it as a legitimate threat to their privilege.

renee's got a great point, there. there are a lot of white feminists who post on issues affecting people of color. why is it that trans issues don't get a similar sort of "air time"? it's a really good question.

i think some of it may have to do with a similar reason the nyt story mentioned earlier today didn't talk about female black politicians. because, for various reasons, transpeople are rendered invisible.

sometimes, it's by choice - a lot of transpeople can "pass" and, in a violently bigoted world, that's a survival mechanism. unfortunately, renee's right and the people who have the voice don't care enough or don't understand the issues as much as they should to lend a voice to trans folks.

saying, "people do not care" is also not an answer, though. i think there is a learning curve to be had and, while it's not justifiable, it does fall to people who understand the issues more to apply pressure to those with loud voices (like the feministing staff) to cover issues affecting trans folks. it's not fair, it's not right, but it may be the way it is.

i've got to qualify that by saying that, as neither a journalist/blogger nor a trans gendered person, i am uniquely unqualified to really have an answer to your really good question, renee.

What an unpleasant set of comments. Pardon me (as a post op transsexual woman) for existing. I know the rad fems have got very attached to the idea that gender is completely a social construct; unfortunately for them it turns out it's not true.
If it were a social construct, I would have carried on as a man - I did it very successfully for decades. Why would anyone go through all that, and give up all that wonderful male privilege? The best answer I can come up with is that one's self perception of sex is not based on what one's body looks like, but something in the brain. So my brain tells me I'm female, and to be comfortable in this society I need to socially express myself within that societies social norms for women. Which as of right now means SRS is quite essential.
There was a long argument with Julie Bindell about this on the Guardian CIF site. She lost.
I'd like to say I'm surprised by the nastiness of the comments on Alternet, but I'm not. I've seen it again and again - seems to me that there are some feminists who really get off on the idea of there being some group they can oppress.
Luckily, I have absolutely no desire to go to Michigan "born with a hoohoo" festival. There's gender essentialism for you.